Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Don’t stifle free speech in the name of peace

By Lukoye Atwoli
Sunday Nation 10 February 2013

In the corridors of power, a consensus seems to be emerging that
the only way to guarantee that the 2008 conflagration is not repeated
this year is to issue a series of bans on behaviour that is considered
“dangerous”. Among other things, discussing “historical injustices” and
land ownership seem to have been flagged as topping the “not-to-do”
list, and government officials have come out strongly suggesting a ban
on these issues.

As has already been pointed out by one of the contending
political parties, land is an election issue this year, and this has
been the case in every free election we have had since the
reintroduction of multiparty politics. The so-called “historical injustices” are also used at
every election to galvanise a section of ostensibly marginalised
communities to vote for a presumed “saviour” who “will right all the
historical wrongs”.

At every election, Kenyans are promised solutions to these
problems, and after every election, little is done to deal with them.
According to some reports, in the last General Election land and
“historical injustices” were in some regions dressed up in the clothing
of a tribe, and the solution then was a simple one of eliminating the
offending tribe.

Obviously, then, these are highly emotive issues that have
to be handled with the requisite sensitivity that is often lacking on
the political platform. But this does not provide the license to ban discussion on these issues in order to forestall possible post-election mayhem.

In my opinion, banning discussion on these issues amounts
to sweeping them under the carpet, which is more dangerous than allowing
free discussion and ventilation by those affected. Further, purporting
to ban these topics infringes on the freedom of speech of Kenyans as
enshrined in the Constitution.

The net effect of these bans is to postpone the discussion
to a future where the truth will always be the first casualty as is
always the case in politics. Bottling up difficult topics is a
well-recognised path to conflict, and the only way to mitigate this is
to allow the issues to be exhaustively addressed in a manner that
clarifies matters truthfully and in a civilised manner.

Instead of banning discussion on these topics, the
responsible authorities should indeed be organising debates between the
political parties in order to hear from them how they will go about
dealing with them if elected.

For instance, getting a party’s commitment to ensure that
the National Land Commission is fully facilitated to carry out its
constitutional mandate would be a fine beginning.

Instead of harping on the much-maligned Truth, Justice and
Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) and its mandate concerning “historical
injustices”, politicians should be encouraged to pledge to deal once
and for all with those grievances.

Allowing discussion on these issues will expose the common
ground all political parties hold as far as they are concerned, and
will serve to reduce the acrimony related to them. Holding politicians to account for allegations they make
in political rallies should reduce wild allegations, and perhaps prompt
the victims of such allegations to give the true version of events.

Above all, the police and the NCIC should concentrate on
their core mandates related to keeping the peace, instead of arrogating
themselves new powers to control campaign content.